St. Francis to sales wrote number of letters when he was Bishop of Geneva, Switzerland no one would listen to him he had to put them individually under the doors of the inheritance, finally they were collected and were put in book form which is called the catholic controversy. If anyone wants to understand about the protestant defamation this is a good start I’ve read them And I find them instrumental in strengthening my faith. My family originally came from Meaux , France, and for about 50 years they were Calvinist. There was a great bishop Jacques Bossuet brought my family and others back to the Catholic faith. This also was instrumental with deepening my understanding of my own faith, and loving it even more even to bringing me. Back to the traditional Latin mass. Enjoy the program. God bless.
Great episode, this is the stuff that got me going on my journey out of Protestantism. Steve does a great job, brings up some stuff that I didn’t know, like Luther rejoicing when Zwingli died. When I was a Protestant I always had a fuzzy idea as to how the “Reformation” spread. I just kind of assumed without evidence through preaching and reading the works of the “reformers”. The reality is that it was spread in a revolutionary manner through violence and overthrow of the existing order. The reformers sought alliances with civil rulers first, who then used their power to loot monasteries and churches and establish Protestantism.
"He [This spiritual man] shall also *judge those who give rise to schisms,* who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, *cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ,* and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it-men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel (Matthew 23:24). For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism. He shall also judge all *those who are beyond the pale of the truth, that is, who are outside the Church;* but he himself shall be judged by no one." -Irenaeus, ~180 AD (Against Heresies, 4, 33, 7)
@@vinciblegaming6817 Interesting thought! Just went through Judges with Bible in Year recently. Irenaeus doesn't mention bride, but one could infer it through Paul's equating of the Body and the Bride.... A shame most Protestants don't associate schism with the image of a body/person being dismembered, like an abortion or a gory horror movie. In a sense, schism does worse than the Passion and Crucifixion, which didn't dismember Jesus.
Yeah thanks for that. I've bailed on this channel more than a few times because of the opening. Stylistically as well as length, doesn't work for me. I would dial down the cordiality about four notches.
Kieth, can I just say that I really enjoy listening to you talk! I love your insights and opinions, so please don’t feel like you have to curb your enthusiasm for the sake of some who don’t appreciate good dialogue! ❤
Wow, what a great point that I don't believe I have ever heard or considered. One of the jobs of secular authorities or rulers was caring for the common good and heresy typically always breeds violence and revolts. So for sake of the common good, secular authorities would punish heretics rather harshly in order to stop potential mass violence or revolts. I'm not saying what they did was completely justified, but it certainly sheds light as to why heretics were dealt with so harshly by the rulers. We were taught growing up that the harsh punishments were simply because the rulers were evil.
Following in the footsteps of St. Peter, the Pope is there to lead followers of the Catholic Church and act as a moral role model. Unfortunately for St. Peter and the church some Popes in history seem to have their own ideas… For centuries, the Catholic church has been ruled by the Pope, who was the symbol of Christlike wholesomeness and an important moral voice to some of the world’s most pressing political and social issues. However, despite their reputation for being the righteous and ethical member in the Catholic world, this hasn’t always been the case. * John XII From taking to the throne at a mere age of eighteen, it was never going to be a great start for Pope John XII. His young heart was not ready for the life of a Pope and soon transformed his residence into a brothel. Going further down the rabbit hole, he took part in murdering, invoking demons, and even having sexual relations with his sisters. His promiscuity ended up being his demise however after a husband caught his wife in bed with John XII and beat the pope so badly, that he died three days later from his injuries. * Boniface VIII A famous and horrifying quote of Boniface VIII was that paedophilia was no more problematic than “rubbing one hand against the other.” Elected in 1294, Boniface VIII established a string of statues all around the city and even destroyed the city Palestrina over a personal feud. He had a reputation for stubbornness and a knack for starting fights. * Benedict IX Benedict IX was pope on 3 separate occasions during his lifetime, with the first being when he was just 12 years old. He grew to be a wicked boy and ran from the position to hide within the city when political opponents tried to murder him. In the time between his reigns, he started thieving, murdering and committing other ‘unspeakable deeds’ throughout the city. He became pope again in 1045, which only last a rough 2 months before someone paid him to leave. Two years after leaving a second time, he tried again, lasting only eight months this time before he was eventually driven out to never return again. * Alexander VI * * Alexander VI started off with his papacy with a defying bang, only getting the position of Pope by bribing his fellow cardinals. Before becoming Pope, he was a member of Borgias, the Italian crime family, and his attitude did not change after becoming Pope. During his time, multiple conspiracies and dishonesty surrounded him and his decisions. As well as being a conniving pope in politics, he was also a promiscuous one. He fathered at least nine children that we know of and was famous for hosting a series of orgies throughout his reign, with one being named ‘Joust of Whores.’ He gets even worse when you see the multiple reports where Alexander VI engaged in incest with his daughter, Lucrezia. * Sergius III Sergius III didn’t just kill the Pope prior to him, but he also killed the pope before that, timing his arrival to reign perfectly. He then used his power to set up his son, Pope John XI, fathered by his 15-year-old prostitute mistress, to be Pope twenty years after him. * Leo X Leo X is famous for his lavish spending during his reign, becoming a patron of the arts who commissioned the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica. After the church’s wallet got a bit lighter, Leo X then convinced believers they could buy their way to heaven, selling indulgences that would reduce their sins. * Stephen VI This Pope started off his reign with a grisly show, digging up his predecessor, the Pope Formosus, and displaying his dead body to stand trial. Formosus’s limp body was propped up on a throne as Stephen VI shouted unanswerable questions at it, accusing him of blasphemy during his supremacy. Unsurprisingly, the dead pope lost, and his body was flung into the Tiber River. Later, however, the body was recovered from the river and given a proper burial by Formosus’ followers. Stephen VI was later imprisoned and strangled to death by Formosus’ supporters. * Sixtus IV * * Sixtus IV started his reign in 1471 and is primarily remembered for commissioning the Sistine Chapel. Despite this stunning creation, it did not overshadow his sins, for he was known to have a large sexual appetite during his time as pope. He had six illegitimate children, with one a result of incest with his sister. Despite his sexual indulgences, he was quite the hypocritic, and strictly policed others. Creating a tax on prostitutes and charging priests who had mistresses. * Innocent VIII Innocent VIII was not so innocent! He was the very first pope in existence to openly confirm his illegitimate children, which was around eight kids at the time, with speculation of it growing. Before his open admission, these bastards were simply known as the Pope’s ‘nephews.’ He was also known to be a big supporter of witch hunting, blessing the act in 1484. * Julius II Starting his reign in 1503, Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times. But by far his worst feature was his severe case of Syphilis, contracting it via prostitutes. It was documented that on Good Friday, his feet were so covered by sores that no one was able to kiss them. * Paul IV Known as one of the worst Popes for his horrific acts of anti-semitism. Instead of being the moral symbol of the Church, Paul IV instead created a Jewish ghetto in a section of the Roman city. Forcing Jewish citizens to publicize themselves by wearing yellow hats. He was such a hated Pope, that after his death, citizens celebrated by tearing down statues of him throughout the city.
Too much credit to the "reformers" with all the church "corruption". People forget there was no e tech for communication and we can see the selected places where bad things happened, but it was not a mass wide spreading. That is also a myth.
Martin Luther: "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"
Luther who did not know the Pope personally did make such statements about the Holy See and about German Princes who did not support him. He was very much like the President Elect of the US in his wavering and attacks on those he perceived as his enemies, however what did those who knew the Pope say about the Bishop of Rome? Cardinal de Medici who was not a staunch supporter but is considered unbiased, and knew the Pope, writing about both his faults and merits tells us this. "As to the purity of the morals of Leo X, it can only be said that as a Cardinal his reputation in this respect was absolutely spotless; there is no proof that as Pope he was in any way different. One of the most pleasing aspects of the character of Leo X is his great benevolence. There was scarcely a work of Christian charity to which he did not give his support. Monasteries and hospitals, not only in Rome but further afield, were the objects of his especial care. Disabled soldiers, poor students, pilgrims, exiles, the blind, cripples and unfortunates of every description were generously helped by him. No less than 6000 ducats were set aside annually to be spent on alms. No wonder that, whenever the Pope went out, the poor from all quarters pressed round him to receive of his bounty. These unfortunates often placed themselves in the corridor leading to the Belvedere; but it was especially when he made excursions into the country that the poor thronged his steps. He was as active in redeeming poor Christian slaves as he was in maintaining those whom the Turks in their lust of conquest had driven from their homes. The books of accounts kept during his Pontificate are full of notes of his expenditure in cases of this kind. Among those who received regular pensions, we find alongside the entries of quite simple people many names of well-known and proudly titled persons. For instance, together with the members of the unfortunate house of Aragon, we find a Catacuzeno, a Tocco di Arta, a Duke of Achaia and prince of Macedonia, and “two sons of the King of Cyprus”. “The treasury of the Pope is empty”, writes Marco Minio in 1520, “because he is so generous that he does not know how to keep back any money ; and the Florentines do not leave him a soldo”.
There is so much more than covered in the video. As to the Sacred Scriptures, there were prior to Luther and other Protestants Pauper's Bibles, picture Bibles both in print and painted on the walls of Cathedrals and parish churches (sometimes also referred to as Pauper's Bibles) which allowed not just the illiterate access to the Bible, but illiterate peoples of any language background to read the Scriptures if they were on pilgrimage in a place which did not speak their local language or dialect.
I find it humorous that the first protestors delete 7 books from the bible and now that they have removed the offensive ones, they claim that only the remaining books are sacred and cannot be changed.
The reformers didn’t “remove” anything from the Bible. The Deuterocanonical books were retained but understood to be helpful and edifying but not suitable for establishing doctrine. This was a long held understanding shared by many in the Church, not an invention of Luther.
This is my issue as a new to Jesus life. The cathy church has a horrible history, has a more complete bible, yet doesn't recognize the boble on its glory. Meanwhile the protestant has half a bible, and swears it's absolute.
These books were never formally declared part of the canon until Trent. There was no consensus on their status. The Jews themselves never considered them part of the Old Testament. The reformers did not remove these books. All of the first Protestant translations of the Bible contained these books. It was noted that while not inspired they nevertheless were worthy of devotion and useful for private study. This was the position of the first 1500 years of Christianity until Trent. Any contemporary Protestant can purchase Protestant translations of the Bible that contain these books. I have one myself. My Pastor commends these books for private study. So it is false that the reformers removed these books. The Roman Catholic Church gives itself away by calling these books deutero canonical which means “second canon”.
@@We.are.all.human. Many thousands of Catholics, especially priests, were murdered by Protestants during the "reformation." Generally, Catholics don't keep bringing this up and trying to beat current Protestants over the head with it. Seems that we are all sinners in need of redemption. And yes, the bible (all 73 books) are sacred to Catholics.
14:25 If Luther wanted a revolution first, why did he write the 95 Theses in 1517, and send them to his bishop. That wasn’t about a revolt. That’s was an objection to teachings. Long before the papers you mention from 1520.
I love that you can do this with sincere interest and passion without getting upset at how much was stolen from modern lovely Christians who remain faithful to these traditions of horrible men.
I wouldn't call them horrible men. That is only the way that history has chosen to view them. More likely, they, like many of us, were very well meaning men and subject to sin just like us.
@yb5515 idk i think I'd be pretty upset at any of my kids who introduced schism into my family and disunified my children for generations over their personal perversities. Especially seeing the cascade of harm it's done to my innocent loves through the generations. God is a merciful father but he is also just. Mercy to a sinner at the expense of millions of innocents isnt mercy, it's a lack of justice
Unfortunately, I lost power and my comment was not finished. As I said, I noticed the scripture says God never changes, and when Jesus saw the woman who had committed adultery, he was willing. To not condemn her and offer forgiveness but for her not to sin again, what really bothers me is when I read detailed history about guys like John Calvin, who had put to death, whether at the stake or signed them over to the Catholic Church to kill them for what he claim was harassing or with his own brother and sister-in-law caught in the very act, he had no mercy, no grace, and if the Spirit of God does not change then, obviously, the problem is with Mr. Calvin and I find it if this is his character, I cannot trust anything he says his attitude about baptism and many other things. He’s a very silver tongued deceiver and for me I don’t believe the Holy Spirit who is in charge of the bride of Christ, while we are on earth and getting her ready, would need us to reshape or reform the church. It should be close to exactly the way Jesus said it up in the beginning the message should not change about salvation, and of course, this sovereignty idea that the devil is on gods payroll is contradictory to the nature of God, and to the rest of the word of God that says he does not sin, and he hates sin. God, that is so I have some major issues, philosophically and biblically, as well as theologically with the entire reformation I am one who does not believe in a pope, and that the Roman bishop got it wrong which caused the great schism which fractured into thousands of denominations we called the protestant reformation tell this is my problem when people tell me about the rat formers . I now believe the reformation is equal bad actors and good, and if we don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus and read the Scriptures ourselves, we will not be able to discern the truth and of course, discernment is one of those gifts of the Holy Spirit we are told to seek along with others according to scripture thanks for your time just reading my answer to you and thanks for your time putting this together .
1. I think we have the benefit of hindsight to look at it this way. What is more important is whether Martin Luther and Protestants saw a difference between a Reformation and a Revolution. It seems they were referring to St Augustine for their theological positions so I tend to think they did not desire a complete break. The previous council didn't bear much reform so they felt they had to do something more drastic 2. So the 5th Lateran Council was from 1512-1517. There was no condemnation of the scandalous Pope Alexander IV. (1492-1503). How can he say that the scandals of that period were no different from other periods? Also,would appreciate if you had shorter videos or time stamps.
Could you help me understand the context of forbidding Bible reading in Toulouse? And Dr. Gavin Ortlund recently produced a video where he demonstrates that, in England, it was illegal to own an English Bible. Why would that be? Thanks!
I can’t speak to Ortlund’s video because I haven’t seen it but I can tell you that I’ve done an Instagram reel on Toulouse and it boils down to this: it was a localized decision by one bishop to forbid reading non-Latin translations of the Bible because the Albigensians (a heretic group) were distributing tainted translations of the Bible which intentionally twisted Scripture to promote their own beliefs. The prohibition was in place while these translations were routed out to protect Christians from being influenced by this heretic group. Hope that makes sense.
@ thanks so much for the quick response! That makes sense! I’m sure there was probably something similar going on in England, given Tyndale and Wycliffe
@@shaunschulte2258 There wasn't. There was 200 years between Wycliffe and the DRB and there were multiple bishops all ove the country that killed Protestants for even distributing English Bibles.
22:41 to be fair to Calvin and the Protestants, was it not the case that there were several manuscript traditions of the letters of Saint Ignatius going around?
The reformation was actually a revolution, a divorce of sorts of those reformers divorcing from the church to start their own churches. And since Jesus and his church are married as one, such as a man and a woman becomes 1 in marriage. And also, Jesus said, "What God brings together, let no man put asunder". Again in Ephesians Paul says, This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church; - Ephesians 5:32 Therefore, the "reformers" actually "divorced" themselves from the covenant by renouncing the church and seeking to become a new bride. The "reformers" were not apostles. They didn't start churches, for there is always only 1 that Christ found upon a rock. They had no authority from christ to start churches. Jesus started the church, and the apostles spread the good news to bring people into the church and into the new covenant.
All I know is that Jesus Christ said that there will be good and bad in his one true church and that they will be allowed to live side by side and then you have the apostle Paul, revealing that there will be enemies in the one true church of Jesus Christ ,so that makes me think of why is it that protesters against the catholic keep finding fault with the Catholic Church when Jesus Christ and his faithful apostle Paul has revealed these things that are happening inside of Jesus one true church and I’m not saying at all that majority or everything that the Catholic Church is teaching is wrong or evil but that there’ll be corruption and problems from those individuals or individual that causes these situations.And yet I confess that the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Christian Church of Traditional Teachings and Worship will stand and continue until the end of time regardless of enemies or those who live sinful lives in it period yeaaaaahhhh alleluia Amen Deo Gratis 🙏🐑🕊️✨🔥
25:00 Holy crap, that battle between Luther and Zwingli needs to be made into an actual movie! It should include the apparitions of Satan to Luther as well. Most Protestants don't know that Martin Luther used to see apparitions of Satan and would debate him.
Where in scripture does it say by Jesus Christ himself that his one true church would need to be reformed I would love to hear it from a protester to prove that scripture say or Jesus himself said that his one true church will need to be reformed I surely would like for a protester to show it that it’s there in the scriptures?🤔🙄😳
Nowhere, although the entire history of the Old Testament shows God's covenant people going off the rails, as for that matter, do the epistles. Where does it say that it will be able to lay down dogmatic beliefs over centuries and that anyone who doesn't assent to them will be outside the body of Christ?
@ it’s right there in the scriptures all I can say is just keep on reading reading reading and meditating on all of the scriptures old and New Testament and if your spiritual eyes ears mind and heart should be opened by Jesus then you’ll be in for a stunning shocking surprising and mind blowing experience that’s all I can say,oh and I’d like to include the apocalypse to can’t leave that out
@@johnchung6777It says the opposite. All who have believed in Christ and/or have been baptised into his death are part of the body. That's simply incompatible with the idea that you can get pushed out of the body of Christ for not believing that Mary was bodily asumed into heaven.
What He said was there would be false teachers creep in with unsound doctrine and beliefs. We are warned throughout the NT about this. Don't know why and Catholic should call for Scriptural evidence with all the non Scriptural traditions and rituals they practice.
@ that’s what you think and understand according to your understanding of scriptures,for everything that you deny about the Catholic Church is in the scriptures it’s there read it and find understanding if you can that’s all I can say
@alisterrebelo9013 Accuracy must be tempered in dialogue with charity. Very few Protestants know that they are wrong. Fewer will recognize this when you come out of the gate calling them "revolutionary," "rebel," "deformer." My point stands; reread my comment.
@@HighKingTurgon I truly understand what you're saying, but I disagree charitably. 500+ years of lies, no more, not from my lips. I don't go around throwing the term as often as I could.Some will challenge me, and when they do I present them with the facts.
A PROTESTANT RESPONSE. These books (apochropha) were never formally declared part of the biblical canon until Trent. There was no consensus on their status. The Jews themselves never considered them part of the Old Testament. The reformers did not remove these books. All of the first Protestant translations of the Bible contained these books. It was noted that while not inspired they nevertheless were worthy of devotion and useful for private study. This was the position of the first 1500 years of Christianity until Trent. Any contemporary Protestant can purchase Protestant translations of the Bible that contain these books. I have one myself. My Pastor commends these books for private study. So it is false that the reformers removed these books. The Roman Catholic Church gives itself away by calling these books deutero canonical which means “second canon”.
Truth matters. Every printed bible before the 1800's has all 73 books, including KJV. The Reformers did not remove the books. The claim is that protestants removed the books a couple of hundred years after the reformation. in 382 Council of Rome which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546,
I came here to say this. Paul is simply dead wrong in this case. The books were received as inspired (in the words of the Council Fathers) as early as the Council of Rome.
@@TheCordialCatholic How is Paul wrong? Sure, the Council of Rome went with the longer canon as did Carthage and Hippo which were influenced by Augustine. But these were not ecumenical councils and contrary opinions could be found throughout Christendom. Those opposing the longer canon included Jerome, Gregory Nazianzus, Cyril of Jerusalem (which gives you a view into how the bible was constituted in the East), and Athanasius. These were not minor figures. These were THE major students of the bible in Christendom. There's also the council of Laodicea which favored a shorter canon. Even into the Reformation era, belief in a shorter canon was an acceptable and common position. Erasmus who debated Luther on free will agreed with Luther on the canon. Cardinal Cajetan who was the chief examiner of Luther's works agreed with Luther on the canon. Cardinal Jimenez of the Spanish Inquisition none-the-less agreed with Luther on the canon. And since you put so much weight on Trent, surely you know that the vote on the canon was far from unanimous. The vote was 24 for the longer canon, 15 for the shorter canon, with 16 abstentions. So not even a majority of those in attendance. The vote, by the way, was taken months after Luther's death. Even if he had lived, the Protestants were sadly excluded from the council, so their voice was never heard on the matter. Finally, the position of Protestants is that these intertestamental writings are helpful by way of study and example of piety. And in some churches they are part of the lectionary readings and perhaps a canticle or two, but they are not suitable for establishing doctrine. In this Protestants are not innovators, but rather follow in a long held tradition of the Church that reaches back to Jerome and even prior to Jerome.
@@mj6493 when something is infallibly defined in an Ecumenical Council it is when it is being questioned. Ecumenical Councils do not go and start infallibly declaring all truths of the faith. So, the fact that regional councils listed the books and did not infallibly declared them at the time just showed that there was no real opposition to it. When some opposition came during the brief re-union with the Eastern Orthodox, they solemnly declared the Cannon at Florence and finally when Luther started questioning some books again, they infallibly declared them at Trent.
1. It is mortal sin. 2. It is almost idiotic to have to remind "folks" that SIN is always and everywhere condemned. 3. Google Mormon/Protestant/Baptist/Calvinist/Jewish/public school tea cher/youth counselor sex abuse and be shocked. Still mortal sin, but ONLY the Catholic Church makes the news. 4. Q: Does Satan attack false religions or only true ones?
Careful when we say "Protestants". Methodists, Anglicans do not generally see themselves in line of Luther, don't know this stuff, nor hate Catholicism.
Some of the most deplorable and virulent anti-Catholic material is produced by Anglicans during the 19th century. On the Internet, some Anglicans can be very nasty to us too.
@masterchief8179 And some beautiful devotional literature, liturgical studies, and Christian apologetics were done by Anglicans, too. We can be nuanced. We don't have to attack someone because they are different or we disagree.
@@Tabletop274That’s not my argument. Maybe it was implied in the OP that Anglicans and Methodists aren’t Protestants because they don’t agree with Luther, which would be wrong; but then it is clearly said that Anglicans and Methodists in general don’t hate Catholics, which is an imprecise and too broad affirmation. The martyrs of the English Reformation are much more numerous than those of the other ones, by the way. That doesn’t have anything to do with attacking people, nor with their liturgies (or whatever). I simply stated facts. Point. An individual Anglican can be very loving and not an anti-Catholic, but others can be much more anti-Catholic than a low church Evangelical. As far as hating Catholics, I’ve seen Eastern Orthodox online being more unpleasant and ridiculously anti-Catholic than anyone else in my personal experience - what does it have to do with their liturgies? I’m not attacking anyone nor anything.
The problem with his take is that he does not distinguish between Luther and Zwingli, for instance. Luther was definitely a reformer, whilst Zwingli and especially the Anabaptists were revolutionaries.
Calling for a National German "church" instead of affirming "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" is not revolutionary?? Did you pay careful attention?
@@tonyl3762 But Luther's Address to the Nobility of the German Nation doesn't call for a "National German church". I have no idea where you're getting that. He outlines the "Three Walls" of Roman abuse: 1. Rome exempting itself from temporal authority, 2. Rome claiming that the Pope cannot err in matters of faith, and 3. Rome asserting that only the Roman pope can call a council. Luther claims that these assertions are an offense to Christ and do harm to Christendom, then makes several practical suggestions which, by the way, he calls REFORMATIONS. First, stop paying money to the Roman Church, 2. literally stop kissing the pope's feet, 3. cease pilgrimages to Rome (Rome was so full of corruption and immorality that it was a bad influence on pilgrims), 4. allow priests to marry, and lastly, show restraint in extravagant commerce which was impoverishing Germany when there are greater needs to be met. That's it. That's your "revolution".
@@mj6493 You admit from the title that Luther is addressing the German nation (and its political leaders especially), yes? Does Luther not in that same document call for the separation of German churches from Rome (and thus the rest of the universal Church in communion with Rome)? Does he not call for secular powers to enforce their own will by violence upon the Church? "Therefore I say, Forasmuch as the temporal power has been ordained by God for the punishment of the bad and the protection of the good, therefore we must let it do its duty throughout the whole Christian body, without respect of persons, whether it strikes popes, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, or whoever it may be.... Therefore the temporal Christian power must exercise its office without let or hindrance, without considering whom it may strike, whether pope, or bishop, or priest: whoever is guilty, let him suffer for it. " Such a peaceful, non-revolutionary "reformation"...ha.
Protestants love Jesus with all their hearts, while Catholics divide their love between Jesus, Mary and the Pope. You cannot serve 3 masters. A house divided against itself cannot stand!
Think again. When a mother gives birth to her second child does she love the first one less? How about parents of FOUR children? Does each child only get one quarter of the parents' love? Ridiculous! Catholics venerate Mary because she is the mother of God, but nobody could venerate and love her more than her SON does! "...all generations shall call me blessed..."
@@alhilford2345 MATTHEW 12:46: While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” The Church refers to all saints as "blessed."
Wrong about Luther and the Reformation. This man is not a scholar. Notice how he doesn't provide any citations or really an specifics. Just sweeping statements based on biased generalizations. Just more Catholic Answers fluff.
I assure you that Weidenkopf is a credentialed scholar who teaches courses at a graduate level and a credentialed school. He can provide sources and citations but that wasn’t the point of this conversation nor the appropriate place or audience. He wasn’t writing a thesis; he was having a chat.
Since you cannot burn people at the stake, all you are left with is TH-cam apologetics and Popes going around preaching human rights, religious freedom, building the civilization of love, who are we to judge, all religions lead to God... Great.
Steve is much too kind, when he says Protestant Revolution. I much prefer the term Protestant Deformation, which looking at the fruits of it, spawning heretic groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, is a much more accurate term.
Luther never took down the sacramental system. We still have it now in the confessional Lutheran church. Luther did reform the Liturgy not started sonething new. However he did fight against the papal system. He fought against Erasmus, which he himself claims was the core issue, namely the "freedom of the will".
@@TheCordialCatholic C’mon, Cordial, Luther spent decades of his life engaging his contemporaries in theological debate. Your “scholar” invents a Luther out to destroy the Church. Ridiculous. He wrote hymns, translated the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek, wrote the Small Catechism so parents could educate their children in the faith, preached regularly, and taught theology at the university of Wittenberg. Read the Augsburg Confession written by Phillip Melanchthon. The Lutherans defend themselves from Roman accusations associating them with the excesses of the radical reformers. They strenuously insist on their continuity with the scriptures, the Fathers, and the catholic faith.
The same way we argue that on Holy Thursday when, as fallible sinful humans, Judas betrayed Jesus, Peter denied him, and the rest of the Apostles fled, that the Apostolic Church itself as an institution did not abandon the Faith.
The church itself can't lose the faith. It's an institution over time. An overwhelming majority of its members can walk around as white washed tombs (or ugly dirty ones for that matter) and it still could not remove the timeless identity of the church. Jesus himself said in spite of the Pharisees they still spoke with the authority that was given to Moses and they were to be seen as such. Same is the identity and authority of the church. He didn't say "they who hear you, hear me, unless you think enough of them are terrible people."
St. Francis to sales wrote number of letters when he was Bishop of Geneva, Switzerland no one would listen to him he had to put them individually under the doors of the inheritance, finally they were collected and were put in book form which is called the catholic controversy. If anyone wants to understand about the protestant defamation this is a good start I’ve read them And I find them instrumental in strengthening my faith. My family originally came from Meaux , France, and for about 50 years they were Calvinist. There was a great bishop Jacques Bossuet brought my family and others back to the Catholic faith. This also was instrumental with deepening my understanding of my own faith, and loving it even more even to bringing me. Back to the traditional Latin mass. Enjoy the program. God bless.
St. Francis de Sales
Great episode, this is the stuff that got me going on my journey out of Protestantism. Steve does a great job, brings up some stuff that I didn’t know, like Luther rejoicing when Zwingli died.
When I was a Protestant I always had a fuzzy idea as to how the “Reformation” spread. I just kind of assumed without evidence through preaching and reading the works of the “reformers”. The reality is that it was spread in a revolutionary manner through violence and overthrow of the existing order. The reformers sought alliances with civil rulers first, who then used their power to loot monasteries and churches and establish Protestantism.
"He [This spiritual man] shall also *judge those who give rise to schisms,* who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, *cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ,* and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it-men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel (Matthew 23:24). For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism. He shall also judge all *those who are beyond the pale of the truth, that is, who are outside the Church;* but he himself shall be judged by no one." -Irenaeus, ~180 AD (Against Heresies, 4, 33, 7)
That allusion to the bride being cut in pieces is the last chapters of Judges… to abandon God’s appointed judges is to devolve into chaos.
@@vinciblegaming6817 Interesting thought! Just went through Judges with Bible in Year recently. Irenaeus doesn't mention bride, but one could infer it through Paul's equating of the Body and the Bride.... A shame most Protestants don't associate schism with the image of a body/person being dismembered, like an abortion or a gory horror movie. In a sense, schism does worse than the Passion and Crucifixion, which didn't dismember Jesus.
4:02 guest begins talking here
That is hilarious. Thanks for doing that. It saved me some few very valuable minutes.
Yeah thanks for that. I've bailed on this channel more than a few times because of the opening. Stylistically as well as length, doesn't work for me. I would dial down the cordiality about four notches.
Kieth, can I just say that I really enjoy listening to you talk! I love your insights and opinions, so please don’t feel like you have to curb your enthusiasm for the sake of some who don’t appreciate good dialogue! ❤
Wow, what a great point that I don't believe I have ever heard or considered. One of the jobs of secular authorities or rulers was caring for the common good and heresy typically always breeds violence and revolts. So for sake of the common good, secular authorities would punish heretics rather harshly in order to stop potential mass violence or revolts. I'm not saying what they did was completely justified, but it certainly sheds light as to why heretics were dealt with so harshly by the rulers. We were taught growing up that the harsh punishments were simply because the rulers were evil.
Following in the footsteps of St. Peter, the Pope is there to lead followers of the Catholic Church and act as a moral role model. Unfortunately for St. Peter and the church some Popes in history seem to have their own ideas…
For centuries, the Catholic church has been ruled by the Pope, who was the symbol of Christlike wholesomeness and an important moral voice to some of the world’s most pressing political and social issues. However, despite their reputation for being the righteous and ethical member in the Catholic world, this hasn’t always been the case.
* John XII From taking to the throne at a mere age of eighteen, it was never going to be a great start for Pope John XII. His young heart was not ready for the life of a Pope and soon transformed his residence into a brothel. Going further down the rabbit hole, he took part in murdering, invoking demons, and even having sexual relations with his sisters. His promiscuity ended up being his demise however after a husband caught his wife in bed with John XII and beat the pope so badly, that he died three days later from his injuries.
* Boniface VIII A famous and horrifying quote of Boniface VIII was that paedophilia was no more problematic than “rubbing one hand against the other.” Elected in 1294, Boniface VIII established a string of statues all around the city and even destroyed the city Palestrina over a personal feud. He had a reputation for stubbornness and a knack for starting fights.
* Benedict IX Benedict IX was pope on 3 separate occasions during his lifetime, with the first being when he was just 12 years old. He grew to be a wicked boy and ran from the position to hide within the city when political opponents tried to murder him. In the time between his reigns, he started thieving, murdering and committing other ‘unspeakable deeds’ throughout the city. He became pope again in 1045, which only last a rough 2 months before someone paid him to leave. Two years after leaving a second time, he tried again, lasting only eight months this time before he was eventually driven out to never return again.
* Alexander VI
*
* Alexander VI started off with his papacy with a defying bang, only getting the position of Pope by bribing his fellow cardinals. Before becoming Pope, he was a member of Borgias, the Italian crime family, and his attitude did not change after becoming Pope. During his time, multiple conspiracies and dishonesty surrounded him and his decisions. As well as being a conniving pope in politics, he was also a promiscuous one. He fathered at least nine children that we know of and was famous for hosting a series of orgies throughout his reign, with one being named ‘Joust of Whores.’ He gets even worse when you see the multiple reports where Alexander VI engaged in incest with his daughter, Lucrezia.
* Sergius III Sergius III didn’t just kill the Pope prior to him, but he also killed the pope before that, timing his arrival to reign perfectly. He then used his power to set up his son, Pope John XI, fathered by his 15-year-old prostitute mistress, to be Pope twenty years after him.
* Leo X Leo X is famous for his lavish spending during his reign, becoming a patron of the arts who commissioned the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica. After the church’s wallet got a bit lighter, Leo X then convinced believers they could buy their way to heaven, selling indulgences that would reduce their sins.
* Stephen VI This Pope started off his reign with a grisly show, digging up his predecessor, the Pope Formosus, and displaying his dead body to stand trial. Formosus’s limp body was propped up on a throne as Stephen VI shouted unanswerable questions at it, accusing him of blasphemy during his supremacy. Unsurprisingly, the dead pope lost, and his body was flung into the Tiber River. Later, however, the body was recovered from the river and given a proper burial by Formosus’ followers. Stephen VI was later imprisoned and strangled to death by Formosus’ supporters.
* Sixtus IV
*
* Sixtus IV started his reign in 1471 and is primarily remembered for commissioning the Sistine Chapel. Despite this stunning creation, it did not overshadow his sins, for he was known to have a large sexual appetite during his time as pope. He had six illegitimate children, with one a result of incest with his sister. Despite his sexual indulgences, he was quite the hypocritic, and strictly policed others. Creating a tax on prostitutes and charging priests who had mistresses.
* Innocent VIII Innocent VIII was not so innocent! He was the very first pope in existence to openly confirm his illegitimate children, which was around eight kids at the time, with speculation of it growing. Before his open admission, these bastards were simply known as the Pope’s ‘nephews.’ He was also known to be a big supporter of witch hunting, blessing the act in 1484.
* Julius II Starting his reign in 1503, Julius II was known for being domineering, hot-headed, and a manic at times. But by far his worst feature was his severe case of Syphilis, contracting it via prostitutes. It was documented that on Good Friday, his feet were so covered by sores that no one was able to kiss them.
* Paul IV Known as one of the worst Popes for his horrific acts of anti-semitism. Instead of being the moral symbol of the Church, Paul IV instead created a Jewish ghetto in a section of the Roman city. Forcing Jewish citizens to publicize themselves by wearing yellow hats. He was such a hated Pope, that after his death, citizens celebrated by tearing down statues of him throughout the city.
Too much credit to the "reformers" with all the church "corruption". People forget there was no e tech for communication and we can see the selected places where bad things happened, but it was not a mass wide spreading. That is also a myth.
Martin Luther: "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"
Luther who did not know the Pope personally did make such statements about the Holy See and about German Princes who did not support him. He was very much like the President Elect of the US in his wavering and attacks on those he perceived as his enemies, however what did those who knew the Pope say about the Bishop of Rome? Cardinal de Medici who was not a staunch supporter but is considered unbiased, and knew the Pope, writing about both his faults and merits tells us this.
"As to the purity of the morals of Leo X, it can only be said that as a Cardinal his reputation in this respect was absolutely spotless; there is no proof that as Pope he was in any way different.
One of the most pleasing aspects of the character of Leo X is his great benevolence. There was scarcely a work of Christian charity to which he did not give his support. Monasteries and hospitals, not only in Rome but further afield, were the objects of his especial care. Disabled soldiers, poor students, pilgrims, exiles, the blind, cripples and unfortunates of every description were generously helped by him. No less than 6000 ducats were set aside annually to be spent on alms. No wonder that, whenever the Pope went out, the poor from all quarters pressed round him to receive of his bounty. These unfortunates often placed themselves in the corridor leading to the Belvedere; but it was especially when he made excursions into the country that the poor thronged his steps. He was as active in redeeming poor Christian slaves as he was in maintaining those whom the Turks in their lust of conquest had driven from their homes. The books of accounts kept during his Pontificate are full of notes of his expenditure in cases of this kind. Among those who received regular pensions, we find alongside the entries of quite simple people many names of well-known and proudly titled persons. For instance, together with the members of the unfortunate house of Aragon, we find a Catacuzeno, a Tocco di Arta, a Duke of Achaia and prince of Macedonia, and “two sons of the King of Cyprus”.
“The treasury of the Pope is empty”, writes Marco Minio in 1520, “because he is so generous that he does not know how to keep back any money ; and the Florentines do not leave him a soldo”.
There is so much more than covered in the video. As to the Sacred Scriptures, there were prior to Luther and other Protestants Pauper's Bibles, picture Bibles both in print and painted on the walls of Cathedrals and parish churches (sometimes also referred to as Pauper's Bibles) which allowed not just the illiterate access to the Bible, but illiterate peoples of any language background to read the Scriptures if they were on pilgrimage in a place which did not speak their local language or dialect.
I find it humorous that the first protestors delete 7 books from the bible and now that they have removed the offensive ones, they claim that only the remaining books are sacred and cannot be changed.
The reformers didn’t “remove” anything from the Bible. The Deuterocanonical books were retained but understood to be helpful and edifying but not suitable for establishing doctrine. This was a long held understanding shared by many in the Church, not an invention of Luther.
This is my issue as a new to Jesus life. The cathy church has a horrible history, has a more complete bible, yet doesn't recognize the boble on its glory. Meanwhile the protestant has half a bible, and swears it's absolute.
These books were never formally declared part of the canon until Trent. There was no consensus on their status. The Jews themselves never considered them part of the Old Testament. The reformers did not remove these books. All of the first Protestant translations of the Bible contained these books. It was noted that while not inspired they nevertheless were worthy of devotion and useful for private study. This was the position of the first 1500 years of Christianity until Trent. Any contemporary Protestant can purchase Protestant translations of the Bible that contain these books. I have one myself. My Pastor commends these books for private study. So it is false that the reformers removed these books. The Roman Catholic Church gives itself away by calling these books deutero canonical which means “second canon”.
@@We.are.all.human. Many thousands of Catholics, especially priests, were murdered by Protestants during the "reformation." Generally, Catholics don't keep bringing this up and trying to beat current Protestants over the head with it. Seems that we are all sinners in need of redemption. And yes, the bible (all 73 books) are sacred to Catholics.
@yb5515 8 million protestants ended because the read or own the bible that the cathy church wanted to keep on Latin only, both are very ev1l sins.
Nice Discussion on the Luthers reformation , Clarified on a lot of Misconceptions surrounding these events
Indeed!
Thank you for this! I was just thinking about how I needed to learn more about the reformation !
Glad you enjoyed it!
Need to read "The Devil's Bagpipe" by James Laing 1581
14:25 If Luther wanted a revolution first, why did he write the 95 Theses in 1517, and send them to his bishop. That wasn’t about a revolt. That’s was an objection to teachings. Long before the papers you mention from 1520.
I love that you can do this with sincere interest and passion without getting upset at how much was stolen from modern lovely Christians who remain faithful to these traditions of horrible men.
I wouldn't call them horrible men. That is only the way that history has chosen to view them. More likely, they, like many of us, were very well meaning men and subject to sin just like us.
@yb5515 I'm not averse to calling any of the rest of us horrible either
@@shananotz9920 Perhaps, but I would prefer to think that God sees us as naughty but lovable children so I will try to do the same.
@yb5515 idk i think I'd be pretty upset at any of my kids who introduced schism into my family and disunified my children for generations over their personal perversities. Especially seeing the cascade of harm it's done to my innocent loves through the generations. God is a merciful father but he is also just. Mercy to a sinner at the expense of millions of innocents isnt mercy, it's a lack of justice
Unfortunately, I lost power and my comment was not finished. As I said, I noticed the scripture says God never changes, and when Jesus saw the woman who had committed adultery, he was willing. To not condemn her and offer forgiveness but for her not to sin again, what really bothers me is when I read detailed history about guys like John Calvin, who had put to death, whether at the stake or signed them over to the Catholic Church to kill them for what he claim was harassing or with his own brother and sister-in-law caught in the very act, he had no mercy, no grace, and if the Spirit of God does not change then, obviously, the problem is with Mr. Calvin and I find it if this is his character, I cannot trust anything he says his attitude about baptism and many other things. He’s a very silver tongued deceiver and for me I don’t believe the Holy Spirit who is in charge of the bride of Christ, while we are on earth and getting her ready, would need us to reshape or reform the church. It should be close to exactly the way Jesus said it up in the beginning the message should not change about salvation, and of course, this sovereignty idea that the devil is on gods payroll is contradictory to the nature of God, and to the rest of the word of God that says he does not sin, and he hates sin. God, that is so I have some major issues, philosophically and biblically, as well as theologically with the entire reformation I am one who does not believe in a pope, and that the Roman bishop got it wrong which caused the great schism which fractured into thousands of denominations we called the protestant reformation tell this is my problem when people tell me about the rat formers . I now believe the reformation is equal bad actors and good, and if we don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus and read the Scriptures ourselves, we will not be able to discern the truth and of course, discernment is one of those gifts of the Holy Spirit we are told to seek along with others according to scripture thanks for your time just reading my answer to you and thanks for your time putting this together .
Many thanks! Great episode!
Great episode 👍
Love Mr. Weidenkopf!! I’ve done a couple of his studies and read several of his books and learned so much!
He’s incredible! One of the best!
1. I think we have the benefit of hindsight to look at it this way. What is more important is whether Martin Luther and Protestants saw a difference between a Reformation and a Revolution. It seems they were referring to St Augustine for their theological positions so I tend to think they did not desire a complete break. The previous council didn't bear much reform so they felt they had to do something more drastic
2. So the 5th Lateran Council was from 1512-1517. There was no condemnation of the scandalous Pope Alexander IV. (1492-1503). How can he say that the scandals of that period were no different from other periods?
Also,would appreciate if you had shorter videos or time stamps.
Thanks much for this video.
Thanks for watching!
It should be called protestant gnostification since luther has gnostic leanings.
I am partial to the term Deformation.
Deforming Gnostification?
Could you help me understand the context of forbidding Bible reading in Toulouse?
And Dr. Gavin Ortlund recently produced a video where he demonstrates that, in England, it was illegal to own an English Bible. Why would that be?
Thanks!
I can’t speak to Ortlund’s video because I haven’t seen it but I can tell you that I’ve done an Instagram reel on Toulouse and it boils down to this: it was a localized decision by one bishop to forbid reading non-Latin translations of the Bible because the Albigensians (a heretic group) were distributing tainted translations of the Bible which intentionally twisted Scripture to promote their own beliefs. The prohibition was in place while these translations were routed out to protect Christians from being influenced by this heretic group. Hope that makes sense.
@ thanks so much for the quick response! That makes sense! I’m sure there was probably something similar going on in England, given Tyndale and Wycliffe
@@shaunschulte2258 There wasn't. There was 200 years between Wycliffe and the DRB and there were multiple bishops all ove the country that killed Protestants for even distributing English Bibles.
@@SeanusAurelius
Do you know how they justified it? Or was it just a power move by the English bishops?
Good job my brother! Nice topic!
22:41 to be fair to Calvin and the Protestants, was it not the case that there were several manuscript traditions of the letters of Saint Ignatius going around?
What difference would that make?
@alhilford2345 There were letter of Saint Ignatius which had been very highly edited.
It could have been possible to dismiss them as forgeries
Protestant Deformation
Good one!
My man! That's my preferred term as well!
The reformation was actually a revolution, a divorce of sorts of those reformers divorcing from the church to start their own churches. And since Jesus and his church are married as one, such as a man and a woman becomes 1 in marriage. And also, Jesus said, "What God brings together, let no man put asunder". Again in Ephesians Paul says, This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church; - Ephesians 5:32
Therefore, the "reformers" actually "divorced" themselves from the covenant by renouncing the church and seeking to become a new bride. The "reformers"
were not apostles. They didn't start churches, for there is always only 1 that Christ found upon a rock. They had no authority from christ to start churches. Jesus started the church, and the apostles spread the good news to bring people into the church and into the new covenant.
Is Protestantism in the leavens of the Faith by Faith Only & the philosophies that arise out of it, Christian ?
All I know is that Jesus Christ said that there will be good and bad in his one true church and that they will be allowed to live side by side and then you have the apostle Paul, revealing that there will be enemies in the one true church of Jesus Christ ,so that makes me think of why is it that protesters against the catholic keep finding fault with the Catholic Church when Jesus Christ and his faithful apostle Paul has revealed these things that are happening inside of Jesus one true church and I’m not saying at all that majority or everything that the Catholic Church is teaching is wrong or evil but that there’ll be corruption and problems from those individuals or individual that causes these situations.And yet I confess that the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Christian Church of Traditional Teachings and Worship will stand and continue until the end of time regardless of enemies or those who live sinful lives in it period yeaaaaahhhh alleluia Amen Deo Gratis 🙏🐑🕊️✨🔥
25:00 Holy crap, that battle between Luther and Zwingli needs to be made into an actual movie!
It should include the apparitions of Satan to Luther as well. Most Protestants don't know that Martin Luther used to see apparitions of Satan and would debate him.
I would like a movie as well about these two "reformers"
But BOTH went strictly by the bible!
Where in scripture does it say by Jesus Christ himself that his one true church would need to be reformed I would love to hear it from a protester to prove that scripture say or Jesus himself said that his one true church will need to be reformed I surely would like for a protester to show it that it’s there in the scriptures?🤔🙄😳
Nowhere, although the entire history of the Old Testament shows God's covenant people going off the rails, as for that matter, do the epistles.
Where does it say that it will be able to lay down dogmatic beliefs over centuries and that anyone who doesn't assent to them will be outside the body of Christ?
@ it’s right there in the scriptures all I can say is just keep on reading reading reading and meditating on all of the scriptures old and New Testament and if your spiritual eyes ears mind and heart should be opened by Jesus then you’ll be in for a stunning shocking surprising and mind blowing experience that’s all I can say,oh and I’d like to include the apocalypse to can’t leave that out
@@johnchung6777It says the opposite. All who have believed in Christ and/or have been baptised into his death are part of the body. That's simply incompatible with the idea that you can get pushed out of the body of Christ for not believing that Mary was bodily asumed into heaven.
What He said was there would be false teachers creep in with unsound doctrine and beliefs. We are warned throughout the NT about this. Don't know why and Catholic should call for Scriptural evidence with all the non Scriptural traditions and rituals they practice.
@ that’s what you think and understand according to your understanding of scriptures,for everything that you deny about the Catholic Church is in the scriptures it’s there read it and find understanding if you can that’s all I can say
Thanks 🙏
I noticed the scripture says God never changes, and when Jesus saw the woman who had committed adultery, he was willing to not condemn her OK
He knew that she was repentant, and He told her not to sin again. He fogave her.
He does tbe same for us today; never changes.
jezus from the green commandments?
Church and State should have a mingling
Possibly an ego of a good man gone wild
Was he ever a good man!
I agree that "Protestant revolution" is more accurate, but I also know that I will get nowhere with ANYBODY I want to dialogue with on the topic
Start by describing the effects and then ask if those quotes and effects are more accurately describing a revolution.
@alisterrebelo9013 Accuracy must be tempered in dialogue with charity. Very few Protestants know that they are wrong. Fewer will recognize this when you come out of the gate calling them "revolutionary," "rebel," "deformer."
My point stands; reread my comment.
@@HighKingTurgon I truly understand what you're saying, but I disagree charitably. 500+ years of lies, no more, not from my lips. I don't go around throwing the term as often as I could.Some will challenge me, and when they do I present them with the facts.
A PROTESTANT RESPONSE. These books (apochropha) were never formally declared part of the biblical canon until Trent. There was no consensus on their status. The Jews themselves never considered them part of the Old Testament. The reformers did not remove these books. All of the first Protestant translations of the Bible contained these books. It was noted that while not inspired they nevertheless were worthy of devotion and useful for private study. This was the position of the first 1500 years of Christianity until Trent. Any contemporary Protestant can purchase Protestant translations of the Bible that contain these books. I have one myself. My Pastor commends these books for private study. So it is false that the reformers removed these books. The Roman Catholic Church gives itself away by calling these books deutero canonical which means “second canon”.
Truth matters. Every printed bible before the 1800's has all 73 books, including KJV. The Reformers did not remove the books. The claim is that protestants removed the books a couple of hundred years after the reformation.
in 382 Council of Rome which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546,
I came here to say this. Paul is simply dead wrong in this case. The books were received as inspired (in the words of the Council Fathers) as early as the Council of Rome.
@@TheCordialCatholic How is Paul wrong? Sure, the Council of Rome went with the longer canon as did Carthage and Hippo which were influenced by Augustine. But these were not ecumenical councils and contrary opinions could be found throughout Christendom. Those opposing the longer canon included Jerome, Gregory Nazianzus, Cyril of Jerusalem (which gives you a view into how the bible was constituted in the East), and Athanasius. These were not minor figures. These were THE major students of the bible in Christendom. There's also the council of Laodicea which favored a shorter canon. Even into the Reformation era, belief in a shorter canon was an acceptable and common position. Erasmus who debated Luther on free will agreed with Luther on the canon. Cardinal Cajetan who was the chief examiner of Luther's works agreed with Luther on the canon. Cardinal Jimenez of the Spanish Inquisition none-the-less agreed with Luther on the canon. And since you put so much weight on Trent, surely you know that the vote on the canon was far from unanimous. The vote was 24 for the longer canon, 15 for the shorter canon, with 16 abstentions. So not even a majority of those in attendance. The vote, by the way, was taken months after Luther's death. Even if he had lived, the Protestants were sadly excluded from the council, so their voice was never heard on the matter. Finally, the position of Protestants is that these intertestamental writings are helpful by way of study and example of piety. And in some churches they are part of the lectionary readings and perhaps a canticle or two, but they are not suitable for establishing doctrine. In this Protestants are not innovators, but rather follow in a long held tradition of the Church that reaches back to Jerome and even prior to Jerome.
So, for something to be true, it must be taught "officially" by magisterial authority?
@@mj6493 when something is infallibly defined in an Ecumenical Council it is when it is being questioned. Ecumenical Councils do not go and start infallibly declaring all truths of the faith.
So, the fact that regional councils listed the books and did not infallibly declared them at the time just showed that there was no real opposition to it. When some opposition came during the brief re-union with the Eastern Orthodox, they solemnly declared the Cannon at Florence and finally when Luther started questioning some books again, they infallibly declared them at Trent.
as catholics, how do you process the decades of sexual abuse by priests?
1. It is mortal sin. 2. It is almost idiotic to have to remind "folks" that SIN is always and everywhere condemned. 3. Google Mormon/Protestant/Baptist/Calvinist/Jewish/public school tea cher/youth counselor sex abuse and be shocked. Still mortal sin, but ONLY the Catholic Church makes the news. 4. Q: Does Satan attack false religions or only true ones?
Great discussion.
I can't believe how dodgy these reformer's were, they completely divided tge church and jesus said we shouldn't do that. They are so evil
one world religion promoted by?
That would be Jesus," Go and make of all believers"
Are you making the claim that the crusaders and the Jesuit is a myth?
Careful when we say "Protestants". Methodists, Anglicans do not generally see themselves in line of Luther, don't know this stuff, nor hate Catholicism.
Some of the most deplorable and virulent anti-Catholic material is produced by Anglicans during the 19th century. On the Internet, some Anglicans can be very nasty to us too.
Methodist and Anglicans are Protestants. They are not Lutherans, but they are Protestants.
@masterchief8179 And some beautiful devotional literature, liturgical studies, and Christian apologetics were done by Anglicans, too.
We can be nuanced. We don't have to attack someone because they are different or we disagree.
@@Tabletop274That’s not my argument. Maybe it was implied in the OP that Anglicans and Methodists aren’t Protestants because they don’t agree with Luther, which would be wrong; but then it is clearly said that Anglicans and Methodists in general don’t hate Catholics, which is an imprecise and too broad affirmation. The martyrs of the English Reformation are much more numerous than those of the other ones, by the way. That doesn’t have anything to do with attacking people, nor with their liturgies (or whatever). I simply stated facts. Point. An individual Anglican can be very loving and not an anti-Catholic, but others can be much more anti-Catholic than a low church Evangelical. As far as hating Catholics, I’ve seen Eastern Orthodox online being more unpleasant and ridiculously anti-Catholic than anyone else in my personal experience - what does it have to do with their liturgies? I’m not attacking anyone nor anything.
The problem with his take is that he does not distinguish between Luther and Zwingli, for instance. Luther was definitely a reformer, whilst Zwingli and especially the Anabaptists were revolutionaries.
Calling for a National German "church" instead of affirming "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" is not revolutionary?? Did you pay careful attention?
@@tonyl3762 But Luther's Address to the Nobility of the German Nation doesn't call for a "National German church". I have no idea where you're getting that. He outlines the "Three Walls" of Roman abuse: 1. Rome exempting itself from temporal authority, 2. Rome claiming that the Pope cannot err in matters of faith, and 3. Rome asserting that only the Roman pope can call a council. Luther claims that these assertions are an offense to Christ and do harm to Christendom, then makes several practical suggestions which, by the way, he calls REFORMATIONS. First, stop paying money to the Roman Church, 2. literally stop kissing the pope's feet, 3. cease pilgrimages to Rome (Rome was so full of corruption and immorality that it was a bad influence on pilgrims), 4. allow priests to marry, and lastly, show restraint in extravagant commerce which was impoverishing Germany when there are greater needs to be met. That's it. That's your "revolution".
@@mj6493 You admit from the title that Luther is addressing the German nation (and its political leaders especially), yes? Does Luther not in that same document call for the separation of German churches from Rome (and thus the rest of the universal Church in communion with Rome)? Does he not call for secular powers to enforce their own will by violence upon the Church?
"Therefore I say, Forasmuch as the temporal power has been ordained by God for the punishment of the bad and the protection of the good, therefore we must let it do its duty throughout the whole Christian body, without respect of persons, whether it strikes popes, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, or whoever it may be.... Therefore the temporal Christian power must exercise its office without let or hindrance, without considering whom it may strike, whether pope, or bishop, or priest: whoever is guilty, let him suffer for it.
"
Such a peaceful, non-revolutionary "reformation"...ha.
Did we know that Luther paved the way for public schools, and women's rights?
Protestants love Jesus with all their hearts, while Catholics divide their love between Jesus, Mary and the Pope. You cannot serve 3 masters. A house divided against itself cannot stand!
Think again.
When a mother gives birth to her second child does she love the first one less?
How about parents of FOUR children?
Does each child only get one quarter of the parents' love?
Ridiculous!
Catholics venerate Mary because she is the mother of God, but nobody could venerate and love her more than her SON does!
"...all generations shall call me blessed..."
@@alhilford2345 MATTHEW 12:46: While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
The Church refers to all saints as "blessed."
Luther did not throw out all Sacraments. He went back to the original sacraments which are connected with the death of Christ.
Did the presenter claim that Luther threw out "all sacraments?" Timestamp, please.
Wrong about Luther and the Reformation. This man is not a scholar. Notice how he doesn't provide any citations or really an specifics. Just sweeping statements based on biased generalizations. Just more Catholic Answers fluff.
I assure you that Weidenkopf is a credentialed scholar who teaches courses at a graduate level and a credentialed school. He can provide sources and citations but that wasn’t the point of this conversation nor the appropriate place or audience. He wasn’t writing a thesis; he was having a chat.
@@TheCordialCatholic But Cordial, he speaks with such a crazy level of bias that he is hard to take seriously. His work seems very superficial.
I think you should get in touch with him and talk about the issue for clarification.
Since you cannot burn people at the stake, all you are left with is TH-cam apologetics and Popes going around preaching human rights, religious freedom, building the civilization of love, who are we to judge, all religions lead to God... Great.
Uhhh Protestants also condone burnings at the stake, dude.
Steve is much too kind, when he says Protestant Revolution.
I much prefer the term Protestant Deformation, which looking at the fruits of it, spawning heretic groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, is a much more accurate term.
I have read most of his works in German and what you are saying is simply ahistoric and directly lying about what he was saying.
Where is the lie?
If he's wrong then explain why.
Luther never took down the sacramental system. We still have it now in the confessional Lutheran church. Luther did reform the Liturgy not started sonething new. However he did fight against the papal system. He fought against Erasmus, which he himself claims was the core issue, namely the "freedom of the will".
@@TheCordialCatholic C’mon, Cordial, Luther spent decades of his life engaging his contemporaries in theological debate. Your “scholar” invents a Luther out to destroy the Church. Ridiculous. He wrote hymns, translated the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek, wrote the Small Catechism so parents could educate their children in the faith, preached regularly, and taught theology at the university of Wittenberg. Read the Augsburg Confession written by Phillip Melanchthon. The Lutherans defend themselves from Roman accusations associating them with the excesses of the radical reformers. They strenuously insist on their continuity with the scriptures, the Fathers, and the catholic faith.
@@Bluegreen525 Interesting. Thank you .
So if the church has these many problems by that time, how do we then argue that the church itself had not left the faith?
The same way we argue that on Holy Thursday when, as fallible sinful humans, Judas betrayed Jesus, Peter denied him, and the rest of the Apostles fled, that the Apostolic Church itself as an institution did not abandon the Faith.
Read what Matthew 16:18 says
Jesus choose Peter because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link
If the Church left the faith, Jesus was a false prophet. You pick.
The church itself can't lose the faith. It's an institution over time. An overwhelming majority of its members can walk around as white washed tombs (or ugly dirty ones for that matter) and it still could not remove the timeless identity of the church. Jesus himself said in spite of the Pharisees they still spoke with the authority that was given to Moses and they were to be seen as such. Same is the identity and authority of the church. He didn't say "they who hear you, hear me, unless you think enough of them are terrible people."